Spring Break
Torture at Guantanamo
Justin Gero
Issue date: 3/9/07 Section: Ed-Op
In "An eyewitness account of the Guantanamo Bay prison" (Jan. 26), Eric Zillmer praised Guantanamo Bay as "a modern security facility." He continued to say: "During my visit, I came to fully believe that the detainees kept at GTMO are being treated humanely and ethically." He did receive a tour of the military prison, but the question remains as to what lies beneath.
In April 2005, a military investigation was conducted on allegations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay. The report says: "26 [FBI] agents stated that they had observed aggressive treatment of detainees at GMTO." What exactly is aggressive treatment? It could be defined as techniques approved for use, but they may be morally or ethically wrong.
In a memo dated Dec. 2, 2002, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved interrogation techniques for use in the Guantanamo Bay facility. An FBI memo on Nov. 27, 2002, just days before Rumsfeld's approval, warned that these practices violate the prohibition of torture.
The FBI report listed 19 different methods of "interrogation techniques" and found that 10 "are not permitted by the U.S. Constitution." The report also found that five techniques violated the U.S. Torture Statue because they inflict "prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; or threat of imminent death." The approved interrogation techniques that violate the law include: the use of stress positions, stripping and shaving prisoners, using dogs to induce stress, and the "use of scenarios to convince a detainee that death or severe pain is imminent for him or his family."
Not only are these techniques deplorable, they are also ineffective. The argument for national security is often used in defense of torture. The problem is that torture is not an effective interrogation technique. The person that is subjected to torture will not yield reliable information because they will say anything to end the pain.
In April 2005, a military investigation was conducted on allegations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay. The report says: "26 [FBI] agents stated that they had observed aggressive treatment of detainees at GMTO." What exactly is aggressive treatment? It could be defined as techniques approved for use, but they may be morally or ethically wrong.
In a memo dated Dec. 2, 2002, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved interrogation techniques for use in the Guantanamo Bay facility. An FBI memo on Nov. 27, 2002, just days before Rumsfeld's approval, warned that these practices violate the prohibition of torture.
The FBI report listed 19 different methods of "interrogation techniques" and found that 10 "are not permitted by the U.S. Constitution." The report also found that five techniques violated the U.S. Torture Statue because they inflict "prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; or threat of imminent death." The approved interrogation techniques that violate the law include: the use of stress positions, stripping and shaving prisoners, using dogs to induce stress, and the "use of scenarios to convince a detainee that death or severe pain is imminent for him or his family."
Not only are these techniques deplorable, they are also ineffective. The argument for national security is often used in defense of torture. The problem is that torture is not an effective interrogation technique. The person that is subjected to torture will not yield reliable information because they will say anything to end the pain.
Be the first to comment on this story